Comments
121 - 140 of 206 Comments Last updated Sep 3, 2013

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
Aug 23, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you are telling half truths. To a point he does disagree but not completely. Now are not half truths the same as lying?
Actually he seemed to imply that if atheists were good they could go to heaven. I will admit that he was not 100% clear in his statement.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
Aug 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Rohan wrote:
However isn't the mercy of God is more likely to descend upon one who does good deeds?
There is absolutely NO evidence to support this.

Further, the Bible _DIRECTLY_ refutes this.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
Aug 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Rohan wrote:
Scriptural Literalism is not really at odds with reality it only appears to be and that too only in the most exceptional cases.
Everyone the descendant of Adam and Eve, talking lizards and donkeys, global flood, flat Earth - yup. Literalism is absurd.

Your only escape route now is allegory and metaphor. In which case the Bible is a crappy science book.
Rohan wrote:
At some point of time there must have been exceptions to this rule.
Except we don't. Life changes over time. Fact. If we follow that to its natural conclusion, what came before humans over 3 billion years ago would not be considered human. You claim the exception to the rule that life changes over time because there reaches a point when change stops.
Rohan wrote:
The believer’s perspective
Is irrelevant to reality, unless you can demonstrate they have some basis in reality.
Rohan wrote:
postulate Adam (pbuh) as being miraculously directly created by God
And that is what you can't demonstrate. Darn.
Rohan wrote:
Source of knowledge is scripture and this worldview is consistent with observable reality with 3 exceptions which are explained as direct miracles of God.
So scripture is consistent with reality despite ZERO evidence of Adam and Eve because you need not one but THREE miracles.
Rohan wrote:
Hence we can say generally God creates human beings through the agency of sexual intercourse
God had sex? Don't remember that whopper.
Rohan wrote:
since a 24 chromosome ape must in at least one exceptional case (according to you) have been a parent of a 23 chromosome human.
Wrong. A 24 chromosome ape was the parent of a 23 chromosome ape. Since life changing is observable this requires no special exceptions.
Rohan wrote:
The unbeliever’s perspective
You are under the delusion that this is theism vs atheism. It's not. Theists accept evolution. You don't. Either way, God or no, evolution happened because that's what the evidence demonstrates. Or God is a liar. I'm open minded.
Rohan wrote:
It is internally logically consistent as indeed one would expect from an absolute truth
Except you are not logically consistent. You make gross basic mistakes about biology which are then pointed out to you, which you do not (and must not) acknowledge. You are then mocked not for your beliefs, but your willful ignorance.
Rohan wrote:
cannot challenge the narrative using reason because it is beyond contestation.
That is because one cannot falsify non-scientific concepts. This in no way makes your beliefs scientifically valid.
Rohan wrote:
he must invent a counter narrative and therefore embraces the (I think) discredited Darwinian dogma with the same zeal as he ought to believe in his scripture but then he also is faced with exceptions.
Just one problem - you're plain wrong.(shrug)

And the difference between us is that WE can back up our claims. You cannot.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130
Aug 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rohan wrote:
No scientist has been able to put non-living matter together in the right conditions to create life.
Actually if they have ever eaten non-living food and had kids then yes they have. Life IS chemistry. You claim chemistry can make life now but it needed Godmagic at the start as an exception.
Rohan wrote:
If science, under rigidly controlled laboratory conditions, cannot generate life from non-living matter, then
It just means they don't know the specifics of how it started yet.
Rohan wrote:
did it happen under random conditions?
Chemistry is not random. So no.
Rohan wrote:
That is the basis for the objection.
We've just seen that your objection is based on your lack of understanding of the subject which is why your objections are worthless.
Rohan wrote:
He has yet another hurdle, he postulates a continuous “evolution” from simple to more complex animals which not only violates the second law of thermodynamics but is directly in opposition to this.
SLOT fail. If this were true you could never have developed from a zygote to a fully-grown human. Again you have no idea what you're talking about so you repeat a fallacious argument which even other creationists know is stupid. The creationists who invented that argument lied to you, because that is what creationists do for a living. Lie for God.
Rohan wrote:
Moreover why do all the evolutionists suppose a continuous ape to man evolution surely a continuous but random process would make some backward jumps even if it were directional (which a random process should not be).
I already provided the link which demonstrated variations in cranial capacity showing that not all lineages went "onwards and upwards", but the general trend showed that of evolution. You didn't even bother to look at it when I presented it the first time or didn't even understand what you were looking at, therefore you are showing that you are dishonest by criticizing a concept you have zero education in.
Rohan wrote:
For example suppose we observe people are getting taller that does not mean that every child is taller
Another of your mistakes - evolution is not goal directed.
Rohan wrote:
There may be some answers to these points but they then imply that there is some divine goal which some of you deny.
Logical fallacy, setting your position as the fallback default position.
Rohan wrote:
I understand that the following is true “No observable process exists by which new information can be added to an organism’s genetic code” in which case this seems to challenge evolution.
Your understanding is blatantly false:

http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...
Rohan wrote:
And again in your theory 23 chromosome man (by definition) must have been born of 24 chromosome ape (by definition) in one generation. So “GODDIDIT” is absurd but monkey fathers human is ok?
No, because no-one claims a completely different species of ape gave birth to humans. Since this has already been explained to you there is little point in trying again since you didn't understand it the first time. What IS important here is that you are not addressing the evidence with anything other than your own incredulity.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131
Aug 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Continued:
Rohan wrote:
Darwin’s attempt at an answer as to why there are no transitional forms currently in existence was an inadequate geographic response.
Again, I presented the evidence to you that he has LONG since been vindicated. You present the same objection and pretend that we have not answered it already. This is dishonest of you. Why do you fundies ALWAYS have to lie?
Rohan wrote:
Also (and this is my understanding
You have none.
Rohan wrote:
from other works)
Those other works are creationist liars.
Rohan wrote:
I think he believed black people to be a sort of transitional form that would eventually be bred out. It was not that he was a racist who happened to be a brilliant biologist (in which case it would just be an ad hominem attack) but rather that the racist worldview was central to the validity of the theory.
100 years ago some may have thought this. That is because they did not understand the theory of evolution. Since both blacks and whites (and every other race AND species currently alive on Earth for that matter) all have the EXACT same length of evolutionary time that went before, no-one is "more-evolved" than any other. In fact the term "more-evolved" does not even make sense in evolution as evolution is not goal-directed. If you want to find a really good racist ideology I suggest you take a look at a famous story about two people called Adam and Eve, where two "perfect" human beings from which the rest of "lesser" humanity allegedly sprang from, and it all went downhill from there.
Rohan wrote:
This presumably causes you some ethical problems at the very least
Not at all. Evolution makes no racist claims.
Rohan wrote:
and anyhow maybe if you put white people in Africa and black people in Northern Europe/America you might after millions of years find the blacks turn white and the whites turn black
Due to evolution. It would take around 20,000 years though. Of course air-travel might slow it down a lot too.
Rohan wrote:
but I don’t think either group would turn into apes or that any existing apes would turn into either black or white people
Since ALL of these are ALREADY apes what you say here doesn't even make sense.
Rohan wrote:
but I could be proved wrong!
You already were before you started posting.
Rohan wrote:
Bottom Line- maybe evolution is a partial truth or an indeterminate one
So far I would say it's about 96% correct. Doesn't look like that's gonna change much any time soon.
Rohan wrote:
but some of you use it to contest the word of God and this is where you are absolutely wrong
Indeed. Since evolution is not atheism and makes no theological claims whatsoever. Even IF there is a God, there's no reason it could not have used evolution unless your religion likes to place limits on the Almighty. Unfortunately for you you cannot even demonstrate it exists any more than I can demonstrate the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Both are equally valid.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
Aug 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rohan wrote:
It would strengthen the evolutionary case
Actually it would have no bearing on the validity of evolution in any way at all whatsoever. Not even a ickle tiny widdle bit.

Evolution doesn't care if life started naturally, by aliens, God, or some unknown fourth option which no-one's thought up yet.

All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

Good luck.
Rohan wrote:
but not refute the creationist case (in my opinion) unless you hold that the two theories are direct opponents.
Precisely. Creationism would be fine with chemical abiogenesis because you can just say Goddidit. Or you can say that God did it differently and isn't limited by the evidence discovered therefore God still didit.

Either way, Goddidit. Doesn't matter. Evidence is irrelevant.

This is why the concept is not falsifiable either way. And therefore not scientific. It is incapable of scientific predictions.
Rohan wrote:
But as for me I believe in God.
Doesn't matter in the least. It has no bearing at all on reality.
Rohan wrote:
Your other post is (I feel) a strategic attack on religion - Basically you are saying there are lots of religions how do I know you are right?:
Firstly while they all have differences they have a main common ground belief in one supreme God (Before you attack Hinduism - they have Paramatmah and Buddhism is a variant of Hinduism)and doing good deeds. By demolishing evolution this core belief is strengthened and of course evolution itself doesn't negate this core belief.
So your god is the god of the gaps? If evolution is wrong therefore Goddidit? And if evolution does happen to be true (which back in the real world, it did by the way) then it doesn't matter because God still didit?

Thought so.

So why all the dishonesty on your part and pretend that this is a discussion of evidence?

Evidence DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL to your position.
Rohan wrote:
So logically
You have none. Evidence doesn't matter. You have your beliefs and that's all. Beliefs you can't back up.

And let's face it, it's not like you have the ability to discuss science either.
Rohan wrote:
this argument in itself isn't sufficient to make my opponents Muslim they might choose to be Christian, Hindu etc ..yes in that regard you are correct. But my stated goal in this context is just to get people to believe in one God and do good deeds.
We're not interested in your preaching.

Besides, as you are a known liar I wouldn't say you're a very good evangelist for "good" deeds.
Rohan wrote:
Also it is not just an intellectual thing otherwise all intelligent people would believe and stupid people disbelieve and may be damned which would seem unfair. The truth (I think) is reached by reason and good deeds so my sincere advice to you is:
1. Pray to God to guide you to whichever religion is correct
2. Do a good deed- eg help an old person across the road/give a burger to a beggar and some money to charity/poor relation of yours etc.
See what happens, good luck and God-willing you come to faith
Not all people require faith in God to do good deeds. I helped an elderly lady today, but I still say your faith is BS as yours requires you to actively deny reality for the sake of your religious beliefs.

That's up to you, but don't ever pretend that your beliefs are valid to anyone else on the planet except for you personally and you only.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
Aug 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Rohan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused:
In any faith good deeds alone are insufficient because this world is transient and the next world is eternal. This is why one must rely of the mercy and grace of God. However isn't the mercy of God is more likely to descend upon one who does good deeds?
Yes an apparent evildoer can be forgiven and raised to supreme heights by accepting the message of the relevant prophet. So yes at the time of Jesus, a rapist, murderer etc could repent accept God through his prophet Jesus (pbuh) and thereafter be blessed.
Similarly in the Jewish tradition the sorcerers of Pharaoh lived as the most evil of creatures being black magicians and then died as the most noble of creatures being martyrs when they realised Moses(pbuh) was the messenger of God.
In the Islamic tradition the Prophet(saw) said "No one attains heaven just by good deeds" the companion asked even you, he said "Even me unless God graces me with his mercy". As you may have guessed this is a Muslim take on it as I am Muslim.
The Prophet (saw) said actions are by intention. So if your question was simply a debating point it is now answered and if your question was truly a search for faith either imagining that you yourself were so evil how could God accept you-then don't despair or conversely if you imagine your charity so great that it alone will buy you entry into heaven it cannot possibly although it may attract the grace of God. Again my advice stands and try it after all your(and my)death is certain so please do not ignore what I say:
1. Pray to God to guide you
2. Do good deeds
May God guide you
How can we be guided by something which may not even exist? Do you have any objectively verifiable scientific evidence that passes the scientific method?

No, we already established that you haven't. Evidence doesn't matter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134
Aug 27, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you are telling half truths. To a point he does disagree but not completely. Now are not half truths the same as lying?
You should know, rope-a-dope.(shrug)
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#135
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dude , So much of what you say is false and just technique, implying that I am lying or am ignorant or so forth. Broadly speaking what I wrote in my original post is sufficient to refute evolution.

1. You seem to think that Darwin's theory has been
validated over time and his own objections regarding transitional forms and his own weak geographic responses are now vindicated - It is the reverse...the theory has become weaker over time not stronger as you imply. In my understanding Darwin's original theory is now discredited and has been since 1967... Else Why did Professor Gould of Harvard University have to replace it by "Punctuated equilibrium theory" which you may know as "Neo-Darwinism"?(Thi s was my point about continuity vs. discrete change)

2. All of this is basically a fudge to explain the paucity of evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record and the zero evidence for any living transitional form at the moment - Surely b/s aside it must have occurred to you as absurd that of the billions of humans and millions of apes alive not one is a transitional form?

3. I could go on an on and refute every one of your points in turn (and may do when I have a bit more time) except one:

The point I could not possibly refute is that you helped an elderly lady - that is the sort of thing I do also -eg helping an elderly gentleman into his car- and that is our common bond of humanity. So underneath it all is there a good dude lurking somewhere?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#136
Aug 29, 2013
 
Rohan wrote:
Dude , So much of what you say is false and just technique, implying that I am lying or am ignorant or so forth. Broadly speaking what I wrote in my original post is sufficient to refute evolution.
1. You seem to think that Darwin's theory has been
validated over time and his own objections regarding transitional forms and his own weak geographic responses are now vindicated - It is the reverse...the theory has become weaker over time not stronger as you imply. In my understanding Darwin's original theory is now discredited and has been since 1967... Else Why did Professor Gould of Harvard University have to replace it by "Punctuated equilibrium theory" which you may know as "Neo-Darwinism"?(Thi s was my point about continuity vs. discrete change)
2. All of this is basically a fudge to explain the paucity of evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record and the zero evidence for any living transitional form at the moment - Surely b/s aside it must have occurred to you as absurd that of the billions of humans and millions of apes alive not one is a transitional form?
3. I could go on an on and refute every one of your points in turn (and may do when I have a bit more time) except one:
The point I could not possibly refute is that you helped an elderly lady - that is the sort of thing I do also -eg helping an elderly gentleman into his car- and that is our common bond of humanity. So underneath it all is there a good dude lurking somewhere?
Yawn. Punctuated equilibrium is a refinement, not a replacement, for evolution. Not only that, but Darwin alluded to what we later called punctuated equilibrium in his very first book.

There are plenty of intermediates in the fossil record and more appearing all the time. If you actually read Darwin instead of prattling off creationist talking points, you would realise he wrote at some length about why transitionals would be rare finds and much o his thinking on that is still valid today.

I am guessing you can actually refute precisely zero points that are salient to the science of evolution but that you have the creationist cliches down pat.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137
Aug 29, 2013
 
Rohan wrote:
Dude , So much of what you say is false and just technique, implying that I am lying or am ignorant or so forth. Broadly speaking what I wrote in my original post is sufficient to refute evolution.
1. You seem to think that Darwin's theory has been
validated over time and his own objections regarding transitional forms and his own weak geographic responses are now vindicated - It is the reverse...the theory has become weaker over time not stronger as you imply. In my understanding Darwin's original theory is now discredited and has been since 1967... Else Why did Professor Gould of Harvard University have to replace it by "Punctuated equilibrium theory" which you may know as "Neo-Darwinism"?(Thi s was my point about continuity vs. discrete change)
2. All of this is basically a fudge to explain the paucity of evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record and the zero evidence for any living transitional form at the moment - Surely b/s aside it must have occurred to you as absurd that of the billions of humans and millions of apes alive not one is a transitional form?
3. I could go on an on and refute every one of your points in turn (and may do when I have a bit more time) except one:
The point I could not possibly refute is that you helped an elderly lady - that is the sort of thing I do also -eg helping an elderly gentleman into his car- and that is our common bond of humanity. So underneath it all is there a good dude lurking somewhere?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of this subject. Pe does not replace national selection at all. Thats like saying that highways disprove internal combustion engine
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#138
Aug 29, 2013
 
Rohan wrote:
Dude , So much of what you say is false and just technique, implying that I am lying or am ignorant or so forth. Broadly speaking what I wrote in my original post is sufficient to refute evolution.
Sorry, but you're lying again. And I'm not saying so as an attempt at flinging poop and hoping it will stick. I am saying so merely because I am describing what is occurring. Your posts have been addressed and refuted by various posters here. In turn, you on the other hand have NOT addressed our posts. You claim, we counter, you counter, and so on and so forth. That's how debate is SUPPOSED to work. But so far we've countered and you've whined about it. That's why you lose. Plus the fact you were wrong before you started posting. Your lies have been observed as you have only repeated fallacies that we have already addressed. And you have made it quite clear that you don't even have a basic science education. These two things are why you're dishonest.
Rohan wrote:
1. You seem to think that Darwin's theory has been validated over time and his own objections regarding transitional forms and his own weak geographic responses are now vindicated - It is the reverse...the theory has become weaker over time not stronger as you imply. In my understanding Darwin's original theory is now discredited and has been since 1967... Else Why did Professor Gould of Harvard University have to replace it by "Punctuated equilibrium theory" which you may know as "Neo-Darwinism"?(Thi s was my point about continuity vs. discrete change)
Darwin's predictions involved change over time and the existence of transitional fossils. This has long been demonstrated in SPADES. And so now you try the fundie lie about Gould as if it somehow discredits evolution as a whole. Here's a hint - it's no longer Darwin's theory any more. Hasn't been for a long time. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis incorporates both Gould AND Darwin's ideas (along with others). The theory has been REFINED and IMPROVED, not falsified. And if you had ever read Gould you would KNOW this, as Gould was an EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST who ACCEPTED evolution. Why? Evidence. But then we already established evidence is meaningless to you.
Rohan wrote:
2. All of this is basically a fudge to explain the paucity of evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record and the zero evidence for any living transitional form at the moment - Surely b/s aside it must have occurred to you as absurd that of the billions of humans and millions of apes alive not one is a transitional form?
Yes, it's occurred to us. But it's also occurred to us that creationists deny evidence they find theologically inconvenient. Also you are expecting a transitional between man and other apes to still be contemporary. That's NOT how evolution works. Again, you can't make valid criticisms when you can't even grasp the basics.
Rohan wrote:
3. I could go on an on and refute every one of your points in turn (and may do when I have a bit more time)
BWA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAA!

Oh, you were serious?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAA!!!
Rohan wrote:
except one: The point I could not possibly refute is that you helped an elderly lady - that is the sort of thing I do also -eg helping an elderly gentleman into his car- and that is our common bond of humanity. So underneath it all is there a good dude lurking somewhere?
I'm already a good dude. The Dude abides. But when fundies on here start lying to me I hit them with both barrels. Sorry if you don't like it.(shrug)
Rohan

Edinburgh, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139
Aug 30, 2013
 
No , I am not lying , and moreover I would venture to say generally "fundies do not lie" anymore than "evotards" do.
And Re- lying what about Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ramapithecus,Orce Man, Java Man, etc?

And moreover there is a profound difference , you see , generally even liars lie for a purpose.. you yourself claim that "fundies lie for God". But it is not merely that these cases (and more) were proven forgeries but why on earth would any evotard need to lie and present these faked missing links and get massive press coverage (as late as 1982) if the case for evolution had already been proven?...and if the evidence was already there in spades (to use your words)- think about it I am not merely saying back to you you guys are liars too what I am really saying if truly your side has won why on earth would you need to lie... Doesn't make sense does it?

As to your claim that PE is a refinement of Darwinian Evolution. That is how it was presented but it presents a problem because Darwinian Evolution fails because it has not presented transitional forms and therefore flies in the face of reason with the lack of continuity as we would expect a continuous range of ape-human morphs in any populations and with other species yet this is not the case. On the other hand PE and others fail because the concept of discrete jumps (what biologists used to call the hopeful monster) is also not yet proven and also lends itself to precisely the same sort of ridicule as the "evotards" throw on the "cretards".

You are saying we don't mind you vaguely believing in God but what we object to is your accepting the literal creation of Adam, Eve and Jesus (peace be upon them all) and when I then ask that people believe in God and do good deeds still you are contentious...

In the words of the Quran 15:14-15

"Even if we opened to them a gate from heaven and they were to keep ascending therein, they would surely say: "Our eyes have been dazzled : Nay we have been bewitched".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#140
Aug 30, 2013
 
Rohan wrote:
No , I am not lying , and moreover I would venture to say generally "fundies do not lie" anymore than "evotards" do.
And Re- lying what about Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ramapithecus,Orce Man, Java Man, etc?
And moreover there is a profound difference , you see , generally even liars lie for a purpose.. you yourself claim that "fundies lie for God". But it is not merely that these cases (and more) were proven forgeries but why on earth would any evotard need to lie and present these faked missing links and get massive press coverage (as late as 1982) if the case for evolution had already been proven?...and if the evidence was already there in spades (to use your words)- think about it I am not merely saying back to you you guys are liars too what I am really saying if truly your side has won why on earth would you need to lie... Doesn't make sense does it?
As to your claim that PE is a refinement of Darwinian Evolution. That is how it was presented but it presents a problem because Darwinian Evolution fails because it has not presented transitional forms and therefore flies in the face of reason with the lack of continuity as we would expect a continuous range of ape-human morphs in any populations and with other species yet this is not the case. On the other hand PE and others fail because the concept of discrete jumps (what biologists used to call the hopeful monster) is also not yet proven and also lends itself to precisely the same sort of ridicule as the "evotards" throw on the "cretards".
You are saying we don't mind you vaguely believing in God but what we object to is your accepting the literal creation of Adam, Eve and Jesus (peace be upon them all) and when I then ask that people believe in God and do good deeds still you are contentious...
In the words of the Quran 15:14-15
"Even if we opened to them a gate from heaven and they were to keep ascending therein, they would surely say: "Our eyes have been dazzled : Nay we have been bewitched".
Sorry, you are wrong. Creationists lie almost all of the time.

You would be extremely hard pressed to find a single honest creationist site.

And your examples are laughable. I am sorry to say they show that you are a creatard. Piltdown Man was a hoax that hurt evolution. If a hoax can be used against a belief then Christianity has been debunked hundreds of times over. The number of Christian hoaxers is without number.

Nebraska Man was a simple error that was very quickly found out.

Ramapithecus was a simple mistake corrected by evolutionists.

Orce man? What about Orce man? If anyone should be embarrassed it would by your fellow creatards.

Java man? Oh my, you are an idiot. Though there was only one sample originally found further exploration at the site found multiple examples. You have to be a true moron to think that Java Man aka Homo erectus was anything but a major find FOR evolution.

It seems that you cannot tell the difference between honest research resulting in major finds, unfortunate mistakes, and outright frauds.

There could not be much worse of a debater for creationism than you. But don't worry, most creatards are idiots so you are in good company.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#141
Aug 30, 2013
 
Rohan wrote:
No , I am not lying , and moreover I would venture to say generally "fundies do not lie" anymore than "evotards" do.
And Re- lying what about Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ramapithecus,Orce Man, Java Man, etc?
This is what we are talking about when we say fundies lie.

Piltdown man was a fake. You know who exposed it? Scientists. You know how? Because it didn't fit the rest of the real evidence.

Nebraska man isn't a real thing. It's a Creationist fantasy. No one on this thread ever heard of Nebraska man before they started dealing with Creationists. A farmer found a tooth and a popular magazine ran a story about it. That's not science any more than stories about Elvis being alive are science.

And Java Man? How is that a lie at all?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142
Aug 30, 2013
 
Rohan wrote:
why on earth would any evotard need to lie and present these faked missing links and get massive press coverage (as late as 1982) if the case for evolution had already been proven?
The only one of these that was a fake was Piltdown. It was forged because the British are arrogant twats who were mad that the Germans were finding all the good bones in Germany and the Brits wanted to have some good fossils at home.

Far from proving evolution, Piltdown actually went AGAINST the evidence. That's how we knew it was fake. It contradicted the real fossils coming out of Africa.

If the British weren't arrogant twats, it never would have been a problem.
Darwinian Evolution fails because it has not presented transitional forms
Every single fossil is transitional.

You are saying we don't mind you vaguely believing in God but what we object to is your accepting the literal creation
For the record, I speak for ALL science when I say this:

We DO NOT CARE what you believe. We ONLY CARE about what you try and force OTHERS to believe.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want. Just keep it out of the science classroom and stop abusing your children with it. And CERTAINLY stop abusing OUR children with it.

If you feel you absolutely need to ruin your own child's future, great. Our children will need janitors.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143
Aug 30, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what we are talking about when we say fundies lie.
Piltdown man was a fake. You know who exposed it? Scientists. You know how? Because it didn't fit the rest of the real evidence.
Nebraska man isn't a real thing. It's a Creationist fantasy. No one on this thread ever heard of Nebraska man before they started dealing with Creationists. A farmer found a tooth and a popular magazine ran a story about it. That's not science any more than stories about Elvis being alive are science.
And Java Man? How is that a lie at all?
Maybe you need to do more reading then. Henry Fairfield Osborn a geologist, paleontologist, and eugenicist is the one that brought Nebraska man into the media with his false claims off of a tooth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144
Aug 31, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you need to do more reading then. Henry Fairfield Osborn a geologist, paleontologist, and eugenicist is the one that brought Nebraska man into the media with his false claims off of a tooth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man
It was not a false claim. It was a mistaken claim.

Do you know the difference?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145
Aug 31, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you need to do more reading then. Henry Fairfield Osborn a geologist, paleontologist, and eugenicist is the one that brought Nebraska man into the media with his false claims off of a tooth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man
No, a farmer found a tooth.
He sent it in to the Smithsonian asking if it was a human ancestor.
The guy replied "Maybe". He was not an expert in swine dentition.
The farmer then leaked the story to a magazine which in turn hired an artist to draw up caveman pictures.
The story in the magazine was not based on any facts because the "facts' were "A farmer found a tooth that a scientist couldn't identify".

There was never a scientific paper written. No one in the scientific community took this story seriously.

It is a NON-story outside of the realm of Creationists.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146
Aug 31, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you need to do more reading then. Henry Fairfield Osborn a geologist, paleontologist, and eugenicist is the one that brought Nebraska man into the media with his false claims off of a tooth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man
Nebraska Man was never accepted in the mainstream scientific community.

It was a claim, that is all.

Now its a hallmark of creationist desperation. Thats all.

Now why don't you take a look at some specimens that are unmistakably ape/ hominid intermediates. Not because I say so, but because comprehensive measurements put their dimensions at intermediate between ape and human norms.

Thats science.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••